Humor from Steve Ballmer and Microsoft (or: Microsoft good, Linux BAD)
Found this in my inbox this morning, and after realizing that it couldn't possibly be completely serious, I calmed down and noted how amusing it was. Let me pick some choice bits out for you on this e-mail about how Windows is cheaper than Linux (eyes rolling yet?):
...But as the Yankee Group commented in an independent, non-sponsored global study of 1,000 IT administrators and executives, Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison, things aren't always as they seem: "All of the major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."...
Umm...they've been charging "hefty" premiums for tech support since they started selling Linux period. That's their revenue model. As for product warranties, show me my product warranty for Windows. What does *that* say? Licenses are granted via the GPL, so you not only don't have to buy them, they can't be sold (Ballmer can't be that stupid, can he? has to be a joke). Licensing indemnification? *What* licenses?
- Preparation and planning activities took 5% to 25% longer for Linux than Windows.
- Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.
Okay...customers knew less about Linux. Wondering why they didn't hire someone who *did* know about Linux...
- All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows consulting resources.
You have *got* to be kidding me. If all 14 companies couldn't find Linux admins..."qualified" ones...they must not know how to shake a stick at them. I suppose part of the problem is related to certifications, since they are uncommon in Linux admins (except for redhat). "Qualified" != "certified"...I guess that's why they can't find them. I am unsurprised that the ones they *did* find cos a bundle: You could wallpaper the georgia dome twice with all the MCSE certs out there, so they don't have the same bargaining power.
A number of third-party reports have questioned how safe the Linux platform really is. For example, a recent independent study by Forrester, Is Linux More Secure than Windows?, highlighted that the four major Linux distributions have a higher incidence and severity of vulnerabilities, and are slower than Microsoft to provide security updates.
That's just plain full-on wrong, but whatever...in the spirit of the running gag, I'll ignore it.
According to Forrester, Microsoft had the lowest elapsed time between disclosure of a vulnerability and the release of a fix. They found that Microsoft addressed all of the 128 publicly disclosed [emphasis added] security flaws in Windows over the 12-month period studied, and that its security updates predated major outbreaks by an average of 305 days.
Ahh...that must be why there is such a big problem with virii and spyware on Linux PC's. Obviously, the research tells the whole story...not.
Blah, blah, blah "Windows is better, we have patents on everything, Linux lusers are t3h sux0rz, etc."
Hope you had a laugh, too.